Obama’s Personal Support for Same-Sex Marriage

The relationship between federal and state laws in the U.S. is surprisingly complicated. Sometimes state and federal laws clash. Sometimes the federal government has to persuade state governments to enact certain laws. Rarely is the relationship as simple as federal trumps state. In many ways it’s a good system. The U.S. is geographically and culturally quite diverse, and the federal system we have helps ensure that the cultural and political norms of one region don’t overshadow the norms of another. However, as it’s a system that was created by people, it’s not perfect. There is one aspect to our system that I wish was more national instead of federal, and that is with regards to civil rights.

Historically, civil rights issues have started at the state level and only slowly made their way to the federal level. Slavery, women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws and interracial marriage all started out as issues left up to the individual states to work out. Presidents and other federal representatives are often initially hesitant to announce their position on these issues. Then they might make their own personal feelings known, but they will still firmly place responsibility at the hands of individual states. It’s only after a great deal of political action and lobbying that they finally come around to admitting that the issue should be addressed on the federal level and taken out of states’ hands. Woodrow Wilson’s position on women’s suffrage is a prime example of this. He hedged around actually voicing support for a national amendment until, finally, in 1918 when he supported the 19th Amendment.

I’d include Obama’s position on same-sex marriage as another example of a President shuffling responsibility for civil rights onto the individual states. On Wednesday, Obama became the first sitting President to voice support for same-sex marriage, sort of. What a lot of news outlets failed to report on is the fact that he mentions it’s only his personal opinion. He still thinks individual states should be able to decide whether they want to make it legal or not on their own. The buck, apparently, stops at state government.

The argument, so I’ve been told, is that marriage has always been a state issue, and so the federal government has no business interfering. Well, I call bullshit on that. What was Loving v. Virginia if not the federal government imposing itself onto state laws regarding marriage? Let’s go back even further. What was Reynolds v. United States if not the federal government butting its head into marriage law, and arguably into religious freedom too? Even same-sex marriage hasn’t always been a state issue. DOMA itself is an example of the federal government legislating marriage, same-sex marriage specifically. What’s more, all of that doesn’t even take into account the 1,000+ federal rights and privileges that are associated with marital status.

So, no, marriage is not a state issue. It’s a national issue, and what’s more it’s a civil rights issue. I think it’s time that the U.S. recognized that and started treating it as such.

About Heather

Heather is a Californian living in the United Kingdom. In order to survive, she has developed a keen appreciation for the color grey, rain, and sausage rolls. She spends far too much time reading, writing, blogging, and gaming. You can also find her saying witty things on Twitter.

[…] Obama held an interview where he voiced his personal support for same-sex marriage. Although I am frustrated at the limits of the support Obama gave, I also understand that it is a pretty big symbolic […]

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

PursuitAce

5 years 4 months ago

You guys got right to it. No need for any lengthy comment here. Why is the state even involved in marriage? Of course people can have relationships with who they want and call it whatever. It’s called the pursuit of happiness. What business does the state have in trying to define and sanction it? More tax dollars? The whole debate is a fabrication.

Here’s the thing…either the government stops recognizing any marriages at all (which would require completely reworking the system), or they have to define it in some way. If the government is going to sanction marriages…then they have to define what they are sanctioning. If the government gets out of the marriage business altogether, then they’re going to have to create more accessible and easier ways of including romantic partners in medical insurance, taxes, adoption, mortgages, immigration, and protection from being forced to testify against your partner…to name a few things. As I said, that would mean a complete reboot of… Read more »

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Eric M.

5 years 4 months ago

Or don’t define it. Allow those in it to define it like they do in part of Canada where the sex or number of partners is left up to the individuals. So, both SS and poly marriages are totally legal. We need to especially stop the criminalization of multiple marriage partners. It’s even illegal to live with multiple partners, even if you’re not legally married to both. That’s impossibly outrageous. This must be stopped.

0

| ShareHide Replies ∧

Guest

Eric M.

5 years 4 months ago

It doesn’t matter whether it’s federal, state, or local; you have the same problem – someone defining what is a personal relationship. Unless the individuals alone are allowed to define marriage, someone will be disenfranchised.